Kerala Court January 1968 Judgments
Food Inspector, Corporation Health Officer, Calicut Vs. Vijayasingh Pa ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-30-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker79; 1969CriLJ414
K. Sadasivan, J.1. The Food Inspector, Calicut Corporation has come up in appeal against the order of acquittal entered by the District Magistrate, Kozhikode in C. C. No. 194 of 1966 on the file of his Court. Prosecution was launched under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against the accused. The first accused is the Managing Partner and the second accused the firm engaged in the sale of articles of food. On 12-8-1966 at about 12-20 noon, P. W. 1 the Food Inspector visited the godown of the firm where he found 30 bags of toor dhall kept, presumably for sale. He seized the article under Section 10(4) of the Act and took samples from two of the bags and sampled them as provided by the Act. On analysis by the Public Analyst it was found that the article was infested with insects and completely damaged, and for that reason adulterated and unfit for human consumption.2. The defence put forward was that the said 30 bags of toor dhal was not Intended for sale. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaran and ors. Vs. Cheriyambadan Ayidru and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker211
K.K. Mathew, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The suit was to enforce a bond executed by the 1st defendant, with 2nd defendant as surety, to the 3rd defendant.2. The 3rd defendant conducted a kuri. The 1st defendant was a subscriber for one ticket in the Kuri. He bid half-a-ticket and executed Ext. A-1, bond. The 1st defendant committed default in the payment of future instalments on 9-8-1953. Thereafter the Kuri broke down on account of the default of the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant had subscribed for 43 instalments and it was from the 44th instalment that he defaulted. According to 3rd defendant, an amount of Rs. 742-8-0 (Rs. 742-50) was due to him from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was also a subscriber in the Kuri conducted by 3rd defendant and for money due to him from the 3rd defendant he filed a suit against the 3rd defendant and obtained a decree and in execution of the decree he brought the right under the bond executed by defendants 1 and 2 and other moveab...
Tag this Judgment!Kolathungal Kunhiraman Vs. Appa Kunhi
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker181
M. Madhavan Nair, J.1. The appellant is the defendant in a suit for redemption of a mortgage, where the reliefs claimed are:'(a) a preliminary decree for redemption of the ......... properties,(b) payment of future mesne profits at Rs. 300/- a year, and(c) costs of the suit with interest thereon.' The defendant contended inter aha that.'the mesne profits claimed is too high and exaggerated and the plaintiff is not entitled to mesne profits before redemption.'The preliminary judgment in the suit is dated August 24, 1953. It reads:'...... In the result, there will be a preliminary decree for redemption and possession of the suit properties on the plaintiff depositing into Court for payment to the defendant of Rs. 1,450/-. The plaintiff will be entitled to future mesne profits from date of suit till date of recovery at a rate to be determined in the final decree proceedings. The parties will bear their own costs. Tune for redemption 3 months.'Thereafter, the plaintiff took out a commissio...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Noordeen Mohammed Vs. A.K. Gopalan and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-15-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1424
Raman Nayar, J.1. What may be called the ruling political parties of this State, headed by the Left Communist Party, called what they called a Kerala Bandh for the 11th of September last in pursuance of a policy of mass agitation against the Central Government. All normal business, whether public or private, was to be suspended throughout the State -- the State Government declared that day a public holiday. The Bandh was opposed by the political parties not in office, principally by the Congress and the Jan Sangh; and, in the midst of all this, one apprehends that the common man (of common sense and common sensibility), whose name was, of course, freely invoked by both sides, only wished to be left alone to go about his lawful business. The result was that there were clashes in various parts of the State between those who, whether by force or how of force or mere sweet reasonableness, wished to ensure observance of the Bandh and those who, in like or unlike measure, resisted their 'per...
Tag this Judgment!Trinity Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt. Ltd., Trichur Vs. Secretary, Boar ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-09-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker124
M.U. Isaac, J. 1. This case arises under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act provides for the levy and collection of duties of excise on medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol, opium, Indian hemp or other narcotic drug or narcotic. Section 3 of the Act contains the charging provision. It reads: '3. Duties of Excise to be levied and collected on certain goods.-- (1) There shall be levied duties of excise, at the rates specified in the Schedule, on all dutiable goods manufactured in India. (2) The duties aforesaid shall be leviable- (a) Where the dutiable goods are manufactured in bond, in the State in which such goods are released from a bonded-warehouse for home consumption, whether such State is the State of manufacture or not; (b) Whether the dutiable goods are not manufactured in bond, in the State in which such goods are manufactured, (3) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-05-1968
Reported in: 1969CriLJ334
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J.1. I ho question raised in this reference by the Addl. Sessions judge of Parui is whether the trial of Sessions Case No. 13 of 19fi7 is barred by 'issue estoppel' by reason of the findings already entered in C.C. No. 198 of 1966 by the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, which arose out of the same transaction as is the subject-matter of Sessions Case No. 13 of 1967.2. The prosecution case is that on 19.11.1964 at 11 a.m. the complainant who was sitting in a shop in Kizhakkambalam market was beaten with iron rods by the accused, three in number, who were acting in pursuance of a common intention to murder him. As a result of the beatings, he sustained injuries all over his body including fracture of a finger bone. He got out of the shop and ran along the road to avoid further blows being sustained; but he was pursued and beaten again and as a result of the further beatings he fell down and was rendered unconscious. By the timely intervention of a police consta...
Tag this Judgment!Subbayyan Muthukomaran Vs. State of Kerala and ors.
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-03-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1554
Isaac, J.1. These three cases arise under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They raise common questions; and hence they were heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this single judgment.2. In Calendar Revision No. 5 of 1967, the accused, a provision merchant, was charged by the Food Inspector of Nedumangad Panchayat in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad, in C. C. No. 72 of 1966 for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The complaint against him was that, on 5-9-1965 he sold adulterated compounded asatoetida to the Food Inspector. The accused was found guilty of the said offence; and he was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.The accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1966 in the Sessions Court of Trivandrum; and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 15th February 1967, allow...
Tag this Judgment!A. Balakrishna Menon and anr. Vs. Inspecting Asst. Commr. of Agricultu ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Ker1
Raman Nayar, J.1. The question is whether the tax due under the provisions of the (Kerala) Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) in respect of income derived by a sthanamdar from stha-nam property is, after his death, leviable from the person or persons on whom the property has devolved. The tax, of nearly Rs. 85,000, assessed in this case was in respect of income derived during the period, 1-11-1958 to 31-3-1958, from the sthanam property of the Zamorin of Calicut by the then Zamorin, Sreemanavikraman Raja. On his death in May 1958, after the Hindu Succession Act came into force, the next Zamorin, Kunhammaman Raja succeeded to the title, but the properly devolved on the 692 members of the Zamorin's family and on Sreemanavikraman Raja's heirs in separate shares in accordance with Section 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act. However, it would appear that, by reason of Section 5 (2) of Kcrala Act 28 of 1958, Kunhanimaman Raja, and, after him, the succeeding Zamo-rins, assum...
Tag this Judgment!A. Balakrishna Menon and Another Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Kerala
Decided on: Jan-01-1968
Reported in: [1968]70ITR548(Ker)
(The judgment of Raman Nayar and Krishnamoorthy Iyer JJ. was delivered by Raman Nayar J. Mathew J. delivered a separate judgment.)RAMAN NAYAR J. - The question is whether the tax due under the provisions of the (Kerala) Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 (for short, the Act), in respect of income derived by a sthanamdar from sthanam property is, after his death, leviable from the person or persons on whom the property has devolved. The tax of nearly Rs. 85,000, assessed in this case, was in respect of income derived during the period, November 1, 1956, to March 31, 1958, from the sthanam property of the Zamorin of Calicut by the then Zamorin, Sreemanavikraman Raja. On his death in May, 1958, after the Hindu Secession Act came into force, the next Zamorin, Kunhammaman Raja, succeeded to the title, but the property devolved on the 692 members of the Zamorins family and on Sreemanavikraman Rajas heirs in separate shares in accordance with section 7(3) of the Hindu Succession Act. However, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›